I am a sympathiser of the NBA but have known Gail, Waharu,
Bharat and some other movements for a long time before I came to know
about NBA. I respond to Gail, in the hope of putting things in perspective,
to help readers as also Arundhati place Gail's major objections in right place.
In the letter by Gail to Arundhati there is not a single argument in favor of BIG dams.
Who is opposed to small dams, as for example Baliraja, a dam built by
locals. Gail acknowledges that NBA will approve such dams, with sharing
of water even for the landless etc. in one of the remarkable movements
mentioned by Gail. The dam caters to two villages. Gail has to give better arguments in favor of big dams .

It is more important to know that today, it is more than anything else,
a technological need that we oppose big dams. Not only because some
poor people matter but because sustainability and ecology matter. Nature can
tolerate small perturbances and no more. But not only that, it is far
more productive, in terms of biological resources and
conservation. Refer none else than Daniel Beard, Commissioner of USBR (an
organisation that can claim to have built most big dams in the USA and owning
48% of water in western US) 1992-95, in his key note address in Austria at
the International Conference on Irrigation and Drainage. He regrets
having built dams. He advocates only underground dams and other
eco-friendly water projects. Clearly opposes big dams.

Even Gail herself has mentioned work of Paranjape and Joy where
alternatives are being talked about. Those alternatives clearly
do not need big dams, certainly don't require any more than the current height.
And they talk of much better availability of water all
over Gujarat and not only for drinking water but for agriculture too.
The condition for such alternatives to succeed is the democratic
distribution system, not electronically empowered 'single authority' as
stipulated by SSP. Till such democratic power is established, dams of
any big size must be opposed. If some including Bharat Patankar don't
vehemently oppose big dams, perhaps its only because they have not
studied big dams. Koyna was a historical fait accompli for them. They are
also in a situation where effort for educating the public against big
dams or against sugar cane agriculture is forbiddingly difficult. Also
they (not Bharat) are under the influence of the neoliberal view of
technology which separates technology from social context. All the same
, it remains a fact that Bharat Patankar also opposes the big dam that SSP is.

Why dosnt Gail take up the arguments one by one. Luckily Arundhati is lucid on the issues?
Is the main issue that NBA is using adivasi? Is it for some ulterior
motive? Is it that NBA is opposed to all canal irrigation. Is it that
NBA does not want people to people contact across the dam? Is the form
of struggle by NBA useless? Let us dwell on some of these .

Is it useless to fight on the judicial platform ? Is there education
about the nature of the State in this struggle? Is it possible to raise
an issue of Rs 44000 Crore, put a check on the project, involve people
all across the globe and succeed in educating a significant mass of
intelligensia ( knowledge workers may sound more proletarian) by adivasis
alone? Or it is necessary to wait till the education of the adivasis is
complete to handle the necessary communication and legal preparation ?
I have been a sympathiser of many movements Gail talks positively about
and went to the NBA almost as a representative of one such. But I had full
access to any and all the adivasis and was quite impressed by their
insight and understanding. There is hardly any rankings in the NBA and so
talking about high rank and low rank has little meaning. There are
lacunae as in any organisation having a long drawn struggle with
fluctuating fortunes and flowing volunteers. A number of adivasis may
have taken the option of rehabilitation, but are still with NBA quite
strongly. A constant communication and consultation among adivasis and
non-adivasis is/was open and visible. Waharu, a good friend of mine, may
have his own complaints about Medha or NBA. But that need not be brought
in to criticize the NBA movement because the scope and nature of the two
movements the two are leading, are vastly different. Waharu works mainly
in Shahada in the plains near Tapi river and less near Narmada valley.
Now about what others and Waharu etc had done before Medha or NBA came ?
Who is NBA or Medha to give or not give credit or certificates ? Let the
existing movements speak. If a movement is confined to a small taluka or
two and is involved in wage struggle and land issues etc, it cannot have
the same visibility as another which extends and networks across a much
larger and different terrain in terms of issues, organisations and
geography. If NBA is unable to give credit to Waharu or any other
similar effort, I can very well understand. The importance of a movement
will be judged by history depending on whether it can regenerate and
proliferate and network with other struggles and what education it may
result in. That in turn will depend on whether the movement caters to
historically important issues. As Arundhati has rightly judged, NBA is in
very good ground on that count.

I wish that readers of the open letter can see the closedness of the
attitude of Gail. If Gail can associate with Sharad Joshi, an open
advocate of globalisation of the WTO type, Arundhati can feel fortunate
not to be influenced by Gail.